28 weeks later Tagged Articles at Cinematical

First, the obligatory Slumdog Millionaire endorsement. I saw it in Telluride, for which I am now grateful, but at the time I cursed the fates. Why? Because I couldn't buy another ticket and go see it again then and there. It opens tomorrow, November 12th, in a bunch of cities, and will trickle on out from there. It's rousing, and wonderful, and I can pretty much guarantee you'll love it.

The feel-frickin'-awesome movie of the year was directed by Danny Boyle, whose Millions hinted at his capacity for big-hearted fairy tales, but who is known for darker material. His biggest hit until a couple of weeks from now is the 2003 zombie horror flick 28 Days Later. He gave up the reins of the sequel, 28 Weeks Later, to talented Spaniard Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (whose Intacto was unjustly ignored six years previous), who wound up upstaging him with what was -- to my mind -- a vastly superior film.

The latest had been that up-and-coming horror director Paul Andrew Williams would be stepping behind the camera for the upcoming 28 Months Later. But now Boyle himself has thrown a wrench into that plan. Though he refused to discuss his idea for the third film, he told a table full of journalists that he'd like to return and direct it himself. "I'd certainly like to... I feel the idea is quite a strong idea, and it could well involve directing it. Yeah, absolutely."

We'll see what happens after Slumdog earns Boyle his first Oscar nods. I actually have faith that he won't abandon genre films -- he's so dang good at them (though I think his best showcase in that respect is actually Sunshine). I still prefer Fresnadillo's take on the 28 franchise, but on the other hand Danny Boyle is my new hero. Mixed feelings.

We've seen the ads countless times. Piracy is theft. If you steal a movie, you're no better than a thief. So on, and so forth. But what actually happens if you do?

As The Hollywood Reporter posts, heading to the theater and recording two films can land you nearly two years in prison. Michael Logan had recorded two films in a theater in Washington, D.C. -- 28 Weeks Later and Enchanted. Granted, the "MPAA says forensic analysis indicates Logan could be responsible for illegally recording more than 100 films from January 2006 to January 2008 in four states and the District of Columbia," but he was only found guilty for two.

Man, I would hope that he did record more -- not to suck it to the studios, but for the simple fact that it would suck if those were the films you got sent to prison for. I'm not saying that they're bad, but if I was getting sent to the slammer for a film, I would want it to be something really great.

Perhaps we'll see a revamp of those commercials in the future. I know tons of non-pirates who think the ads are a big joke, but maybe the message could be relayed a little better if stories like these were used. Weigh in below!

The first thing I see looking in my 400-screens-or-less realm this week is a couple of sequels, Are We Done Yet? (244 screens) and 28 Weeks Later (206 screens). I had to sit through the former, and it has rightly earned a slot on the IMDB's user-ratings list of the 100 worst movies of all time. I missed the latter because our local publicists programmed the press screening up against Georgia Rule (156 screens), and I have to go where I'm assigned. Regardless, I want to ask: why were these movies made? The obvious answer is because the originals were popular, but the issue is a bit more complex. I think sequels (or, for that matter, remakes) should only be made if the audience wishes it, not because of a bookkeeping decision.

We should start by asking what kinds of movies we love. I have had many discussions with collectors of DVDs over what kinds of movies are deserving of being included in a home library. It goes much deeper than good movies and bad movies. Some movies we collect because they're classics, like, say, Casablanca (1942). Cinema buffs may concentrate on a favorite director, like Bresson, Lang or Leone. Other movies we unabashedly love, like Ghost World (2001) or Shaun of the Dead (2004). Then we have our own personal cult classics, such as Repo Man (1984) or Near Dark (1987). Some movies we admit aren't particularly great, but we like to re-live the experience, like The Bourne Identity (2002) or The Transporter (2002).

Does the world need another movie about a comic book hero? How about one that's described as "a romantic comedy about the end of the world"? In Santos, an upcoming film from writer/director Nicolás López, the title character is a "failed comic book artist [who] lives in a parallel universe where he's a superhero who has to save the world." I grant you, the premise doesn't sound terribly original -- it may even make you groan -- but comedies are all about the execution, and some of the actors involved give me reason for optimism. Leonardo Sbaraglia made sharp dramatic turns in both Intacto (directed by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo of 28 Weeks Later fame) and The Whore and the Whale; I'd love to see what he does in a comedy. Guillermo Toledo brought true inspired lunacy to his lead role in Alex de la Iglesia's Ferpect Crime. And Elsa Pataky is simply beautiful, which may be sexist but is always a bonus for a romantic comedy.

According to the official web site, director López is just 24 years of age, yet has been making films for half his life. The IMDb bio says that his influences include Robert Rodriguez and Kevin Smith. He was heavily involved with the comedy series Piloto MTV, which aired on MTV Latin America. His first film, Below Average, was a big hit in Chile and screened at South by Southwest and the Los Angeles Film Festival, though Variety savaged it as a "tiresome" regurgitation of American movies. The trailer for Santos looks stylish and cool, setting up an apocalyptic mood before tossing stock comic book hero images into the mix. Who knows if López actually has the chops to pull this off, and if the appeal will translate beyond his homeland, but I'm keeping my nerd-loving foreign language-biased fingers crossed. Santos is set to fly into Chilean theaters in November 2007.

[Via Jaman Message Boards]

Unless you've been cooped up David Blaine-like in a box somewhere, you know that last week Spider-Man 3 finished first, shattering the box-office record with a $151 million opening. Given the inevitability of No. 1, you'd think all our predictors would knock this one out of the park -- but no one ended up with a perfect prediction. Here's how the box office top five shook down:

1. Spider-Man 3 - $151 million
2. Disturbia - $5.7 million
3. Fracture - $3.4 million
4. The Invisible - $3.1 million
5. Next - $2.8 million

bubba8193 finished first -- again! -- with evilone1414 nipping at his heels. Aaaand I finished last ... again. (Full list of results after the jump.) Of course, I threw the whole thing to make you guys look good; as a wise man once said, everything I do, I do it for you. But seriously, since there's nothing I can say about Spidey that hasn't already been said, I'll put this out there instead: What ... is the deal ... with Disturbia? Have that many people never heard of Rear Window? Does Shia LaBeouf really have that many fans? Or is everything else out there just that unappealing? OK. Letting it go now. I promise.

28 Weeks Later
What It's About: In this follow-up to Danny Boyle's zombie thriller 28 Days Later, survivors return to London only to face the aftermath of the rage virus: paranoia, betrayal, cowardice, people eating each other. Good times.
Why It Might Do Well: 28 Days Later was a sleeper hit, earning $45 million domestically, and reviews for this one have generally been positive. C'mon, who doesn't love zombies?
Why It Might Not Do Well: Most of its target audience will be seeing Spider-Man 3 this weekend, and this feels like the umpteenth horror movie to come out in 2007.
Prediction: $15 million

We had a good look at the first 28 minutes of this movie a few weeks ago, and it definitely held up to our expectations. There's certainly a lot more gore here than in the first film (and the rest of the movie is a lot bloodier than the first 28 minutes), and there were quite a few pop-out-of-your-seat moments throughout, as evidenced by the number of times that my rear end left the seat. Just to prove I'm not particularly susceptible, the people around me all leapt at the appropriate moments as well.

28 Weeks Later isn't so much a sequel in action as it is in spirit. It is literally 28 weeks after the breakout of the rage virus, and the population of mainland Britain has been wiped out and the country has been declared safe and an America led NATO force is responsible for repopulating the city of London. They've re-established water and power, have operating public transportation, and apparently even the taps are flowing at a local pub that has been re-opened. It's been declared good enough to allow 15,000 people to start repopulating the country, and that number is growing with every new arrival.

If you can't wait another five weeks for the release of 28 Weeks Later on May 11, the good people at Fox Atomic are sympathetic -- they've just dropped us a few new pics that give you some hints as to what you can expect. The film picks up where Danny Boyle's 2002 horror hit 28 Days Later left off, with an incurable virus having completely decimated the population of Britain by turning most of the people into savage zombie-killers. When 28 Weeks Later begins, the U.K. is now deserted and under the control of the U.S. military; the viral infection is supposedly contained, so the Army is attempting to begin a slow repopulation of the country -- how do you think that will turn out? The first pic, above, is captioned 15 Days Later, setting the mood of a quarantined Britain, with the mass evacuation of all uninfected citizens having been ordered. The rest are after the jump -- just click on the pics to get the full-sized, uncut image.

If there's one thing that's more inevitable than a PG-13 remake of a classic horror flick, it's a sequel to an "out of nowhere" horror hit. And yes, I most definitely consider Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later to be (at least partially) a horror flick, although I have a few geek friends who love to argue about that. And we all know the drill by now: We hear that something called 28 Weeks Later is in production and we get really conflicted. On one hand, another dose of infected terror could be a real hoot; on the other, we really hate it when we see lame-o sequels spawned from really solid genre flicks.

The good news is that, based on what I've seen and heard regarding 28 Weeks Later, we just might be in for a gruesome good time. And if you'd like a nifty little taste of what's in store for a post-apocalyptic London, then by all means check out this brand-new trailer for the sequel. (Before yesterday you could only see this clip if you went to see The Hills Have Eyes 2, and while it's a pretty good trailer, I don't really consider that a fair trade-off.) Helmed by Intacto director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, the follow-up stars folks like Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Jeremy Renner, Harold Perrineau and Catherine McCormack and it opens wide on May 11.

Fox Atomic decided to torture us by inviting us over the the swanky Fox lot to view the first 28 minutes of the in-progress flick, 28 Weeks Later (we parked in "The Sound of Music," and let me tell you ... those hills were most definitely not alive. They didn't have eyes either, thankfully). I can say with absolute conviction, if you liked the first one, you're going to like this one as well. It's also safe to say (according to Fox Atomic) that you don't have to have seen the first film in order to enjoy this one. That's definitely true from what I was treated to.

Here's the setting: it's 28 weeks since the outbreak of the Rage infection that decimated London in the first film, 28 Days Later (hence 28 Weeks Later ... both movies are timed from the infection outbreak, which is day zero.) If you haven't seen the first film, the Rage virus/infection isn't pretty. One bite (or even a single drop of blood) from someone who is infected will put you instantly into a "state of irreversible hyperactivity and murderousness," according to Wikipedia. It's almost like being turned into a familiar horror movie staple (we aren't using the zed word here), except with the extreme hyperactivity.

I've seen Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later more times than I care to mention, which means the idea of a sequel fills me with a) cautious enthusiasm and b) amazing geekiness. If you'd like to see the all-new trailer for 28 Weeks Later, you'll have to do so this weekend during a screening of The Hills Have Eyes 2. (It'll hit the internets after the weekend.) But if you'd like to catch a glimpse of the new (and rather cool) one-sheet for 28WL, you can do so over at Bloody-disgusting.com.

The official plot synopsis goes like this: "Six months after the rage virus has annihilated the British Isles, the U.S. Army declares that the war against infection has been won, and that the reconstruction of the country can begin. In the first wave of returning refugees, a family is reunited -- but one of them unwittingly carries a terrible secret. The virus is not yet dead, and this time, it is more dangerous than ever." And having spent a few days on the set last year, I can tell you this: The filmmakers are serious about making a sequel that stands up to Mr. Boyle's well-regarded piece of horrific sci-fi.

28 Weeks Later opens on May 11. At the helm is Intacto director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, working from a screenplay by Rowan Joffe, Enrique Lavigne and Jesus Olmo. The cast includes folks like Robert Carlyle, Rose Byrne, Catherine McCormack, Jeremy Renner and Harold Perrineau. Opening night audiences will include folks like ... me.